Texas Defender wrote: Wonderful, Unionblue. On another thread, the Confederates were compared to the Nazis. Now on this one you bring on someone who compares them to communists.
The last thing in the world they were was communists, since the relative weakness of the central government was a great handicap to the Confederates.I was under the impression the author of the article was likening the Confederacy to those coup attempts in South America, saying the 'revolution' was for one thing, when it was actually for something else. With four, direct Confederate ancestors of my own, I am also of the opinion they were not 'communists' in any true sense of the word. Sorry if I gave offense, as it was not intended, but the paragraph was presented so the second one would not be out of context. This latest quoted person's objection to secession is to argue the morality of slavery. That is a separate question and does not speak to the legal question of secession, which is what was being discussed before.I was under the impression that we were trying to compare the Declaration of Independence and its listed reasons for the separation from England so that we could compare them with the reasons the South separated from the Union. In my view, it would be totally impossible to do so without the issue of slavery, as it was a primary reason the South seceded from the Union.Maintaining that one : "rebellion" is justifiable because in your opinion its based on positive moral principles, and saying another is illegal because in your opinion it isn't based on sound moral principles is an absurdity. Mixing a moral question with a legal one answers neither.Neither was the rebellion of 1776 a legal matter, as no rebellion is grounded in law, but in moral principles. The Founders knew this. What's that line from the movie, 1776 by the character that plays Ben Franklin? "Rebellion is illegal in the third person, such as "their rebellion." "It is only legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." I submit rebellions are mostly resorted to for moral reasons than legal ones.The issue of slavery was of course the catalyst issue, but it wasn't the only one. The larger question was (and to a degree still is) how much authority the federal government rightfully has over the states.The issue of slavery was "the largest tree in the forrest" as General Gordon stated after the war. Again, when comparing the reasons the colonies of 1776 rebelled against England, and the reason the South rebelled against the Union, I see very little in comparison from one to the other.

Sincerely,

Unionblue

____________________Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.

there are some who would say that State's Rights are an eupheunasm for slavery/segregation/Jim Crow, etc, etc and that it is all a southern conspiracy to keep black folk down. At one time there was an element of truth in that as State's Rights was used as an argument for continuing all these evils, but the larger issue is " What is the proper relationship between the states and the Federal Government?"

The "Sovereign States" and all that implies, came together, voluntairly, and formed a national, central government. They all ponied up some power for the pot, but not all of it..

The feds declare war, coin money, move the mail, provide for the common defense, etc..

What about the power (Rights) the states did NOT pony up?

who wants to discuss this one?

Ed

Ed.

Please continue.

Sincerely,

Unionblue

____________________Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.

The author of the piece you presented wrote: "This made the Confederacy an illegitimate government like the communist coups taking place on an hourly basis in South America." I would object to this comparison, not only to the author saying that the Confederates were acting like communists, but that they were pulling off a coup d'etat (A "stroke of state."). A coup d'etat can be loosely described as a deliberate violation of constitutional forms by a group of persons in order to replace an existing government with a new (And thus: "illegitimate") one.

The Confederates believed that they were acting within their rights granted by the US Constitution. They would have said that they were not exchanging one form of government for another by destroying the existing one. The colonists in 1776 were not trying to destroy the British Crown and replace it. They only sought to leave the Empire. Similarly, the Confederates were not out to destroy the existing US Government and replace it. They only sought to leave it. Both were similar in that they sought to change the legal status of the people in that sense.

I do not remember seeing the original post on this thread, but I have no interest in, nor have I made an attempt to, compare Mr. Jefferson's specific reasons justifying cutting the cord with Britain to the Confederates' reasons for leaving the US Government. Thus, it seems that my objectives here are more limited than yours. I would make a comparison by saying that both groups felt that their actions were justified based on violations of their rights by the existing governments.

You stated that: "No rebellion is grounded in law." The Confederates felt that there was a legal basis to justify their actions. They would not have characterized what they were doing as a : "rebellion" at all. Jefferson Davis' Inaugural Address, like the DOI, attempted to explain the reasons for the actions taken. Davis wrote: "When they (the states) entered into the Union in 1789, it was with the undeniable recognition of the power of the people to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of that government, whenever, in their opinion, its functions were perverted and its ends defeated." That, in their view, was what they were doing.

The Confederates' view of the US Constitution was that they were exercising their legal rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments to it, and that their new government was not: "illegitimate" (illegal) as your quoted author claims.

The Confederates' view of the US Constitution was that they were exercising their legal rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments to it, and that their new government was not: "illegitimate" (illegal) as your quoted author claims.

Texas Defender,

Could you please show where in the ordinances/declarations of secession which Southern States claimed they were exercising their legal rights under the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution?

I would appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Unionblue

____________________Belief does not make truth.
Evidence makes truth.
And belief does not make evidence.

It was a central theme of the : "leaders of secession" that the US Constitution limited the powers of the Federal Government and reserved unspecified powers to the people and the states (in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.).

Many of their writings and statements expressed the view that the Federal Government had exceeded its authority and encroached on the rights of the states and the people. The general idea was that the compact between the states and the people with the object they created, the Federal Government, had been broken, and thus they were reclaiming their previous status.

Since you have asked for examples from the ordinances of secession, I would refer you to that of Kentucky. It presents in a nutshell the legal argument for secession, and obviously refers to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the US Constitution.

"Wheras, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of Northern society, and instead of giving protection to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our properties, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; .........................."

One of my professors once made the excellent point to not necessarily assume that the grandiose, self-righteous documents that get written to justify acts are necessarily the reasons those actions were taken. Food for thought.

An excellent work regarding secession, that I would encourage everyone to read, is Charles Dew's Apostles of Disunion. He tells the story of the secession commissioners, the men sent out by South Carolina, Alabama, etc., to sell secession to their fellow Southerners. He uses their speeches, diaries, and letters, the men's own words, as his primary material. The commisioners weren't espousing constitutional rights and principles when they were talking to Southern legislatures or other groups. Rather, they were preaching that Republicans were going to free Southern slaves, encourage them to murder their masters, and rape the helpless wives and daughters of the South. Southerners then had no choice but to leave the Union, if only to protect themselves.

It was a central theme of the : "leaders of secession" that the US Constitution limited the powers of the Federal Government and reserved unspecified powers to the people and the states (in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.).

Many of their writings and statements expressed the view that the Federal Government had exceeded its authority and encroached on the rights of the states and the people. The general idea was that the compact between the states and the people with the object they created, the Federal Government, had been broken, and thus they were reclaiming their previous status.

Since you have asked for examples from the ordinances of secession, I would refer you to that of Kentucky. It presents in a nutshell the legal argument for secession, and obviously refers to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the US Constitution.

"Wheras, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of Northern society, and instead of giving protection to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our properties, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; .........................."

Thank you for the above post and link to the Kentucky Ordinance of Secession.

Sorry to appear so dense, but where specifically within the shown ordinance did Kentucky claim secession under the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution?

I admit that I am reluctant to guess at where they precisely say such in their ordinance.

Plus, I must add, TD, that I am somewhat in doubt that the above ordinance represented the people of Kentucky, as it claims, as this was passed in Russellville, KY, by a group styling themselves as such.

I found a website which contains all the ordinances of secession for the Southern States, in an effort to help you with identifying those Southern States that based their states secession on the 9th and 10th amendments.

I do not believe that you are actually: "so dense" as you now pretend to be. However, I will post the texts of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments so that others may read and compare them to the Kentucky Ordinance of Secession. Perhaps they will note the references to the limited powers of the Federal Government, and the rights reserved to the States and the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment IX

The Enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

When I returned to posting on this thread, my objective was to contest your statement made on 28 November that: ".....in their hearts and minds, the leaders of secession knew that they had no moral, political, or legal ground to justify their attempt at rebellion."

You admitted the inaccuracy of this statement on your posting of 29 November. This could have ended the exchange. But the discussion then evolved to the question of secession. My objective in this case became to explain the reasoning of the: "leaders of secession" and their justification for seceding.

I had no interest in arguing the morality of slavery or the validity of the southern leaders' reasons for resorting to secession, or whether or not they might have prevailed in a case in a federal court. Those are matters of opinion as I previously stated. I pursued more limited objectives here. I believe that I have achieved these objectives in my postings since 29 November.

Now in your posting of 15 December, you asked me for examples from ordinances of secession in which states justified secession based on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the US Constitution. I believe that I gave you an excellent example in the Kentucky Ordinance.

In your posting on 16 December, you pretended to not see any relationship in the language. My response to that was to post the texts of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments for the basis of comparison.

After posting that, I noticed that you had amended your previous posting by adding, among other things, a reference (and link) to the various ordinances of secession, along with a condescending remark about: "helping" me identify which states based secession on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Apparently, you want me to analyze all the various ordinances. This I have no intention of doing.

If you did not believe that the southern leaders justified secession based on the Amendments cited (And I cannot see how a reasonable person would take that position), then you simply could have agreed to disagree. Instead, it is apparent that you prefer to be an agent provocateur on this thread.

As I believe that I've met my stated objectives here, I'll get out of the way so that you might find other targets. Endless wrangling holds no appeal for me.

The : "last word" is left to you because you wish to continue this: "discussion" and you already know that I do not. However, I will not be provoked into making any further responses. I will not post again on this thread.